Those seem odd reasons. Lacking AD might make Hyper-V a negative, but having AD doesn't make it have any positive features. And Windows runs best on KVM, over Hyper-V. So normally, for what little the workload is worth, having Windows specifically would lead to KVM over Hyper-V.

That's all other things ignored, but the two factors that you mentioned are either "don't point to either" or "point to KVM".

Ah so you already had a Hyper-V box, and just migrated your VMs and then reloaded the existing XS box with Hyper-V.

Fair enough.

well no - I decomm'ed the old box running XenServer.

Oh, that's completely different. So you have a new box, and just wanted Hyper-V?

New to this purpose - yes... so I set it up with Hyper-V 2019 (yeah JB is spinning in his grave).

My old XenServer box needed to die - so I moved the VM to Hyper-V and killed it.

I didn't really care about XenServer/XCP-ng - so meh. I feel/felt I needed some hands on experience in Hyper-V, Plus I do have an AD environment, so I used Hyper-V. that's the long and the short. Ultimately I don't really give a shit which hypervisor I use. I might bail on it later.. I truly dislike the single pain of glass management of Hyper-V (at least without VMM - huge cost) - and fuck dealing mainly with CLI.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning!

Yeah so it sounds like you have some good reasons to use Hyper-V. But also some good reasons to not want to deal with it. I doubt that XCP-ng would be any easier or more difficult though.

Granted XO makes a lot of the operational things simple, but it's still important to know how the hypervisor works.

Oh - actually - I fully expect XCP-ng to be 100% easier. If it's not - I will never look at it beyond the first time. XenServer basically gave me exactly what I had in ESXi 5.5 - a locally installed app that allowed me to manage the hypervisor in a single pane of glass (was it called XenCenter?).

If XCP-ng doesn't do that - screw it.
I haven't dealt with KVM - but I feel the same about it.

Yes we need the CLI options for those managing 10's or more of these things, but I don't.

So while XCP-ng has a Single Pane of Glass management and backup system, it is not a part of the hypervisor. You can't go to http://hypervisor-ip:8080 and manage it.

You need to install a VM first (either the appliance demo - which can be done via the CLI of the hypervisor) or Ubuntu and then setup XO by hand. (of course I'd recommend using the install script).

Ah so you already had a Hyper-V box, and just migrated your VMs and then reloaded the existing XS box with Hyper-V.

Fair enough.

well no - I decomm'ed the old box running XenServer.

Oh, that's completely different. So you have a new box, and just wanted Hyper-V?

New to this purpose - yes... so I set it up with Hyper-V 2019 (yeah JB is spinning in his grave).

My old XenServer box needed to die - so I moved the VM to Hyper-V and killed it.

I didn't really care about XenServer/XCP-ng - so meh. I feel/felt I needed some hands on experience in Hyper-V, Plus I do have an AD environment, so I used Hyper-V. that's the long and the short. Ultimately I don't really give a shit which hypervisor I use. I might bail on it later.. I truly dislike the single pain of glass management of Hyper-V (at least without VMM - huge cost) - and fuck dealing mainly with CLI.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning!

Yeah so it sounds like you have some good reasons to use Hyper-V. But also some good reasons to not want to deal with it. I doubt that XCP-ng would be any easier or more difficult though.

Granted XO makes a lot of the operational things simple, but it's still important to know how the hypervisor works.

Oh - actually - I fully expect XCP-ng to be 100% easier. If it's not - I will never look at it beyond the first time. XenServer basically gave me exactly what I had in ESXi 5.5 - a locally installed app that allowed me to manage the hypervisor in a single pane of glass (was it called XenCenter?).

If XCP-ng doesn't do that - screw it.
I haven't dealt with KVM - but I feel the same about it.

Yes we need the CLI options for those managing 10's or more of these things, but I don't.

So while XCP-ng has a Single Pane of Glass management and backup system, it is not a part of the hypervisor. You can't go to http://hypervisor-ip:8080 and manage it.

You need to install a VM first (either the appliance demo - which can be done via the CLI of the hypervisor) or Ubuntu and then setup XO by hand. (of course I'd recommend using the install script).

Ah so you already had a Hyper-V box, and just migrated your VMs and then reloaded the existing XS box with Hyper-V.

Fair enough.

well no - I decomm'ed the old box running XenServer.

Oh, that's completely different. So you have a new box, and just wanted Hyper-V?

New to this purpose - yes... so I set it up with Hyper-V 2019 (yeah JB is spinning in his grave).

My old XenServer box needed to die - so I moved the VM to Hyper-V and killed it.

I didn't really care about XenServer/XCP-ng - so meh. I feel/felt I needed some hands on experience in Hyper-V, Plus I do have an AD environment, so I used Hyper-V. that's the long and the short. Ultimately I don't really give a shit which hypervisor I use. I might bail on it later.. I truly dislike the single pain of glass management of Hyper-V (at least without VMM - huge cost) - and fuck dealing mainly with CLI.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning!

Yeah so it sounds like you have some good reasons to use Hyper-V. But also some good reasons to not want to deal with it. I doubt that XCP-ng would be any easier or more difficult though.

Granted XO makes a lot of the operational things simple, but it's still important to know how the hypervisor works.

Oh - actually - I fully expect XCP-ng to be 100% easier. If it's not - I will never look at it beyond the first time. XenServer basically gave me exactly what I had in ESXi 5.5 - a locally installed app that allowed me to manage the hypervisor in a single pane of glass (was it called XenCenter?).

If XCP-ng doesn't do that - screw it.
I haven't dealt with KVM - but I feel the same about it.

Yes we need the CLI options for those managing 10's or more of these things, but I don't.

So while XCP-ng has a Single Pane of Glass management and backup system, it is not a part of the hypervisor. You can't go to http://hypervisor-ip:8080 and manage it.

You need to install a VM first (either the appliance demo - which can be done via the CLI of the hypervisor) or Ubuntu and then setup XO by hand. (of course I'd recommend using the install script).

Ah so you already had a Hyper-V box, and just migrated your VMs and then reloaded the existing XS box with Hyper-V.

Fair enough.

well no - I decomm'ed the old box running XenServer.

Oh, that's completely different. So you have a new box, and just wanted Hyper-V?

New to this purpose - yes... so I set it up with Hyper-V 2019 (yeah JB is spinning in his grave).

My old XenServer box needed to die - so I moved the VM to Hyper-V and killed it.

I didn't really care about XenServer/XCP-ng - so meh. I feel/felt I needed some hands on experience in Hyper-V, Plus I do have an AD environment, so I used Hyper-V. that's the long and the short. Ultimately I don't really give a shit which hypervisor I use. I might bail on it later.. I truly dislike the single pain of glass management of Hyper-V (at least without VMM - huge cost) - and fuck dealing mainly with CLI.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning!

Yeah so it sounds like you have some good reasons to use Hyper-V. But also some good reasons to not want to deal with it. I doubt that XCP-ng would be any easier or more difficult though.

Granted XO makes a lot of the operational things simple, but it's still important to know how the hypervisor works.

Oh - actually - I fully expect XCP-ng to be 100% easier. If it's not - I will never look at it beyond the first time. XenServer basically gave me exactly what I had in ESXi 5.5 - a locally installed app that allowed me to manage the hypervisor in a single pane of glass (was it called XenCenter?).

If XCP-ng doesn't do that - screw it.
I haven't dealt with KVM - but I feel the same about it.

Yes we need the CLI options for those managing 10's or more of these things, but I don't.

So while XCP-ng has a Single Pane of Glass management and backup system, it is not a part of the hypervisor. You can't go to http://hypervisor-ip:8080 and manage it.

You need to install a VM first (either the appliance demo - which can be done via the CLI of the hypervisor) or Ubuntu and then setup XO by hand. (of course I'd recommend using the install script).

So there is no XenCenter like app for XCP-ng? - suck

There is. It's basically a rebranded XenCenter. I forget what they called it, XCP something. (Not at home to look.)

Ah so you already had a Hyper-V box, and just migrated your VMs and then reloaded the existing XS box with Hyper-V.

Fair enough.

well no - I decomm'ed the old box running XenServer.

Oh, that's completely different. So you have a new box, and just wanted Hyper-V?

New to this purpose - yes... so I set it up with Hyper-V 2019 (yeah JB is spinning in his grave).

My old XenServer box needed to die - so I moved the VM to Hyper-V and killed it.

I didn't really care about XenServer/XCP-ng - so meh. I feel/felt I needed some hands on experience in Hyper-V, Plus I do have an AD environment, so I used Hyper-V. that's the long and the short. Ultimately I don't really give a shit which hypervisor I use. I might bail on it later.. I truly dislike the single pain of glass management of Hyper-V (at least without VMM - huge cost) - and fuck dealing mainly with CLI.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning!

Yeah so it sounds like you have some good reasons to use Hyper-V. But also some good reasons to not want to deal with it. I doubt that XCP-ng would be any easier or more difficult though.

Granted XO makes a lot of the operational things simple, but it's still important to know how the hypervisor works.

Oh - actually - I fully expect XCP-ng to be 100% easier. If it's not - I will never look at it beyond the first time. XenServer basically gave me exactly what I had in ESXi 5.5 - a locally installed app that allowed me to manage the hypervisor in a single pane of glass (was it called XenCenter?).

If XCP-ng doesn't do that - screw it.
I haven't dealt with KVM - but I feel the same about it.

Yes we need the CLI options for those managing 10's or more of these things, but I don't.

So while XCP-ng has a Single Pane of Glass management and backup system, it is not a part of the hypervisor. You can't go to http://hypervisor-ip:8080 and manage it.

You need to install a VM first (either the appliance demo - which can be done via the CLI of the hypervisor) or Ubuntu and then setup XO by hand. (of course I'd recommend using the install script).

So there is no XenCenter like app for XCP-ng? - suck

There is. It's basically a rebranded XenCenter. I forget what they called it, XCP something. (Not at home to look.)

Ah, that's totally different, and perfectly fine. But state that as the reason, not something else. If you had "no AD and only Linux workloads" it would actually make Hyper-V make more sense than it does here.

Ah, that's totally different, and perfectly fine. But state that as the reason, not something else. If you had "no AD and only Linux workloads" it would actually make Hyper-V make more sense than it does here.

I take it you have witnessed this or have read papers where people have shown that Hyper-V is better for linux workloads and KVM is better for Windows ones?

Ah, that's totally different, and perfectly fine. But state that as the reason, not something else. If you had "no AD and only Linux workloads" it would actually make Hyper-V make more sense than it does here.

I take it you have witnessed this or have read papers where people have shown that Hyper-V is better for linux workloads and KVM is better for Windows ones?

They are about even for Linux, but KVM is the best for Windows. That's measured, yes.

So am I wrong for running both linux and windows workloads on hyper-v?

Not at all. The hypervisor has very little effect on the guest performance. There are margins that you can stretch for if you need the absolute best possible performance for a specific workload. Which may sway your decision.

But you should choose your hypervisor based on the experience and familiarity with the tools you use regularly.

I would never use XCP-NG in production because it is too new and has no valid ecosystem yet.

It is now XenServer. it was forked and subsequently modified.

Modified by smart people who had a bad business model get totally ruined by the XenServer change.

The new business model driving XCP-NG is what I don't trust.

This is no different than any other FOSS solution getting forked and subsequently modified. The ownCloud/Nextcloud split was similar. In that case I moved with Nextcloud because that was the better business model, the I felt would be the better support choice.

The XCP-NG team is a team that had a horrible business model that they were trying to implement around XenServer (XOA). Great concept, poor business model.

I wish them well but they are fighting a few things...

Citrix couldn't make any real money even when they charged more and people were taking the product seriously.

Last time I checked they were just replacing some management components and packaging some storage stuff. They are not investing in upstream and there's a lot of... changes coming in hardware that are going to require non-trivial investments for hypervisors to remain relevant.

The real problem with Xen is upstream investment is drying up. Citrix has pulled back, Amazon and other cloud providers have moved on to KVM, SuSE doesn't even market virtualization (SAP HANA support, containers, OS is as close to bare metal as they get). Outside of some people in ARM/automotive virtualization I haven't seen anyone picking it up for net new projects. In the enterprise Oracle is the only champion of it these days. KVM won the open source hypervisor war (although at this point does anyone really care?)